Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book asks Canadians to abandon the political scientist's standard explanatory model with its three historical categories: conservatism, liberalism, and socialism and to adopt instead the distinction, familiar in the arts and in philosophy, between classicism and romanticism.It argues that Canadian political history and our politics today reveal a tension -a quarrel if you willbetween the classicism of the European Enlightenment and the romanticism of the Counter-Enlightenment.I am indebted to two authors especially.The first is Isaiah Berlin, whose lectures on the Counter-Enlightenment were delivered in 1965 and published in 1999 as The Roots of Romanticism.The second is Judith Shklar.In After Utopia: The Decline of Political Faith (1957), Shklar employs the distinction between the Enlightenment and the Counter-Enlightenment to trace "modern man's decline of confidence" in metaphysical certainty.I use the distinction to describe the decline of confidence in the institutions and practices of parliamentary democracy.Both Shklar and Berlin describe the political philosophy of the Enlightenment as "liberal" and the philosophies of the Counter-Enlightenment as "romantic."In this book, "liberalism" refers to the ideas and the political prescriptions of Enlightenment figures like the seventeenth-century philosopher John Locke and his disciples in the centuries following -the Lockean liberals, the constitutionalists.It is classicism in political dress.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.557 | 0.334 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".